I am not a believer in the argument that we are facing anthropogenic climate change. I am due to run another review through the material to see if I'm going to change my mind because I'm prone to forget all the detail of the debate, and new facts and assertions arise which can have some bearing. The politics however are taking over the science, as the following broadcast shows.
So what is wrong with this promotion. I have several problems:
1. Appeal to authority - The guy has a lot of credentials, but none is at all related to the issue, aside from the fact that he is related to the mining industry. You cannot disregard what he says because he's from the mining industry, but don't let all those letters intimidate you, it just means he belongs to a lot of mining industry associations.
2. Appeal to exaggeration - The guy cites the cost of the tax as $A72 billion over 5 years. Why not one year? Well that would mean just $A15 billion per annum, and that would be less impressive. But again the size of the tax is not really the issue....its the science. So why does he make the issue?
3. Alternative - I have a problem with a critique of the tax which does not offer alternative science, if not a different form for the tax. Preferably no tax for me.
4. Proportions - There are 33 CO2 molecules in an atmosphere of 85,800 molecules in the atmosphere. He argues that 32 of the CO2 molecules are from nature, and just 1 CO2 molecule is from nature. i.e. 3% of Earth's CO2 comes from humans.
5. Co2 is beneficial (akin to fertiliser) - Not the issue - as ammonia is a fertiliser too; but its also an explosive. Its not a helpful argument; it depends on the context.
6. Short latency - This idea that any CO2 is in the atmosphere for as little as 4-5 years. Where does he get that from? Does it matter? The amount of Co2 is increasing. This argument needs clarification to me.
7. Australia's contribution - He makes the argument that Australia makes 1.5% of world's CO2. Fair enough; but we are the world's biggest coal exporter, which means we export about half as much coal as China produces in one year. Now, if we tax that, then obviously its significant imposition on consumers worldwide, though I would argue that its not going to do anything to the dynamics of global warming, i.e. Its just an excuse for a tax. Koreans are not going to close coal-fired power stations; they are not going to stop using coal; its simply going to raise a lot more money for Gillard to waste. I personally would rather see billionaires get the billions than see the government get it....at least so long as governments are in the business of breaching rights rather than upholding them.
8. Misdirection - He says its going to cost the community $72 billion in the next 5 years. No it won't; it will cost mostly the mining companies and their shareholders; so it will cost super fund holders to some extent; say to $20 billion; but then some of that money will benefit some in the community. At the end of the day its a moral issue for me; its extortion.
9. Perspective: My friend keeps reminding me that CO2 accounts for just 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, while water is anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 parts per million. CO2 is only slightly more worrisome as a greenhouse gas than water, so why aren't we worried about water? Well, the argument is that water is bad because CO2 is bad. i.e. The more CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat, which will result in more water; at least until the point of air saturation. You'd think that this would mean more plants in the tropics, which means more absorption of CO2 and a nice little balance. We also need to consider that the earth's population is destined to flatten out in 30 years, however energy intensity will continue; however nuclear and solar might be more popular then. I don't think we need worry even if the science is correct.
If you want some even better perspective; being worried about coal, its worth considering the fact that there is still plenty of coal in the ground, and that most of that coal was deposited in 2 periods - the Carboniferous Period in the Northern Hemisphere and the Permian Period in the Southern Hemisphere. If these were periods of very high coal deposition; it goes without saying that our climate today must be similar to the climate when all that coal was deposited right? As its mostly still in the ground. Ok, let's be more sceptical. Let's look at the Earth at the start of the Carboniferous Period. Well, its clear it was higher, but perfectly within the natural range. Looking at his chart temperatures were typical (25degC average), commensurate with times, which correlates with CO2 levels of 3000ppm at that time, 8.5x more than than the 380ppm. You also get the impression that CO2 does not correlate at all with global temperatures in the long haul. The context is being dropped. Perhaps we should be more worried about the plague or asteroids which caused the mass extinction in the Triassic Period, given that the average global temperature was 25degC for most of the last 300Myrs and have been mostly around 25degC for most of the Tertary Period (i.e. the last 65Myrs). Having fallen to 10degC; the current average global temperature is currently14degC, which strikes me as 'just right' +/- 5degrees.
It saddens me that the mining industry has not raised the fact that the entire globe of governments is now raises mining taxes because of Gillard. Products will get more expensive because of Gillard. i.e. Gillard and Rudd have singularly undermined freedom around the world; well maybe in the West only, as you could argue that some of those undeveloped countries need to spend more on justice and infrastructure....or are they corrupt??
Polar sea ice levels are another controversial arena to debate climate change. The exponents of global warming here are a geophysicist (i.e. glorified geologist) and a US Navy Oceanographer (i.e. a bureaucrat). There arguments are really not compelling. i.e. The evidence the geophysicists is the 'melting ice doesn't lie'; true, it is what is it is; but it does not make an argument for climate change, which is an abstract value judgement. Is this what behaviourism has done to science? This science from a denier strikes me as more useful; as it looks dispassionately at the whole 'modern period', not selectively at 'convenient' facts. I must however acknowledge that I'd like to do more research of this topic. Here though is another study which suggests that the extent of Arctic ice coverage was lower in the 11-14th century, prior to the Industrial Revolution. Look at the chart - it tends to convey a pretty natural trend.
Here is another website to take a look at.
------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
